{"id":5990,"date":"2012-04-05T10:00:53","date_gmt":"2011-09-06T00:27:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-09-05T16:17:58","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5990","title":{"rendered":"CA6: After defendant’s arrest on outstanding warrants, his car was lawfully impounded because it could not be left on side of city street"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was stopped for no seatbelt and a cracked windshield, and the officer ran his DL finding two child support warrants. The impoundment was valid because the vehicle would have to have been left on the street, constituting a road hazard. Also, the claim it wasn\u2019t stated properly in the police reports was raised on appeal but not raised before the District Judge in review of the USMJ\u2019s R&R, so it is waived. United States v. Lilly<\/a>, 438 Fed. Appx. 439 (6th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s clothing was properly seized incident to his arrest. He was found unconscious in the same apartment where there was a body in the bathtub, and he was covered with blood. A presumptively reliable citizen informant said that defendant said that he\u2019d killed the victim. That was probable cause. State v. Minton<\/a>, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 688 (September 1, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs were anti-abortion advocates who were arrested for trespass, but the charges were dismissed. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit; they thought the plaintiffs were trespassing at the time of arrest, but it proved to be legally wrong. Skovgard v. Pedro<\/a>, 448 Fed. Appx. 538 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n

The officer entered the plaintiffs\u2019 house with exigent circumstances; after seeing methamphetamine paraphernalia, he said he was detaining everybody while a search warrant was obtained. A minor entered a separate residence in the premises, and he went there, too. There was a factual dispute denying qualified immunity as to the later entry. Modrell v. Hayden<\/a>, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18355 (6th Cir. August 30, 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5990","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5990\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}